Obama v Romney 1st debate - who won ?

[Lerxst]

A government's role is to govern - in our case, a nation of over 300 million people. If everyone voted based on their own self-interest and what they personally want, it would contradict the very definition of a government. If everyone was given their own individual freedoms to do whatever, whenever ("small" government) then we'd soon find ourselves living in an Anarchy and the step past that is a Dictatorship - when one person/small group gets the idea of controlling the things no one else bothers with since they perceive it as something that won't affect them... like the military, mint, utilities, etc.

I bet a lot of you have already been there in a classroom, or workplace... I have. You work for a very easy going, relaxed employer who has a loose set of rules for the staff. Everyone cooperates and does their job except one person. That one person bullies everyone else, pushes them out of the way, takes credit for everything and so on. And they can get away with it because there's nothing and no one in place to stop them.

Back to the debates...

You can already see this happening with Romney. His "clique" controls the vast portion of wealth in this country, thanks to some of those care-free policies no one could be bothered with in the 70's and 80's. He and his cohorts bullied their way through the business world, finding every loophole they could because the people who could stop them were too busy trying to build their own wealth in the free-for-all market we had (Watch "Wall Street" for a prime example... greed is good).

Now in 2012, all those people who looked the other way or were blinded by the potential to get rich quick back in the 80's, don't see anything wrong with what he did; it was their culture, their way of life. Kudos to him for accomplishing the goals everyone had!

Of course, now he and 1% of the people want even more power and more control. Wealth wasn't the end of it, it was the tip of the iceberg; the means to an end. Those people will still look at him and think, "Wow, he came up with some real zingers" or "He really held his own", without even paying attention to anything that really came out of his mouth. For them, the words are rehashed stuff they grew up with and lived with for almost 15 years... it's like white noise.

And it's all because these people violated and/or don't understand what the role of a government should be - to govern the people.

 

[acd]

Romney won the first one because he was arrogant, aggressive, and at times, bombastic. He won based on style rather than substance though because he can't actually tell anyone how his tax plan won't add to the deficit without crushing the middle class. Oh. That's right. He'd have to get elected and work with congress for us to know--that's awfully presumptuous for a guy who has demonstrated with his own mouth that you can't trust him..

He seemed SO coached--his staff must have had him cloistered for hundreds of hours rehearsing and practicing. Most everything he said was so bullet pointed. Idk what Obamas deal was. He seemed like he had taken NyQuil and was ready for bed the whole time. Maybe he figured, "it's in the bag!" after all of Romneys recent gaffes and so he didn't prepare. And the giant parakeet man of a moderator sucked.

 

[tfg345i4u5lw]

[MENTION=6229]Cherokee[/MENTION] you go on and vote as you will-- vote for your vision of the country. Of that vision includes the needs and well-being of other individuals--more power to ya. I do not understand how NOT voting for your vision of America, but for your immediate individual needs is beneficial to yourself and country. It seems to me to be quite the opposite. No single politician is going to solve all your problems--and voting solely based on your individual needs seems very short-sighted. All things are interdependent. I don't want to have to live in a country where gays are refused rights and where the elderly and sick go broke and starve trying to afford care... Those two things ripple and impact me.

This is something I wanted to elaborate on but you did it for me.

 

[Apone]

There are far too many undeserving people who abuse the system. All it does is hurt those who benefit. I do realize that the fallacy of this video implies that the person themself is actually GETTING the welfare. They are only getting it because they have children, and when they are in need ... that is what it is for. Trust me, the system is abused horribly.

One of the reasons that people abuse the system is because they can't bring themselves to actually believe in it. I know that this isn't a thread about welfare but what the video didn't show you is what kind of 'jobs' were being offered, or the realities of post-prison life in hard economic times. Sometimes it's easier for people to have the kind of attitude you're seeing in the videos, because the alternative is for them to admit that they're probably always going to be second or third class citizens with nothing in particular to live for.

 

[Billy]

One of the reasons that people abuse the system is because they can't bring themselves to actually believe in it. I know that this isn't a thread about welfare but what the video didn't show you is what kind of 'jobs' were being offered, or the realities of post-prison life in hard economic times. Sometimes it's easier for people to have the kind of attitude you're seeing in the videos, because the alternative is for them to admit that they're probably always going to be second or third class citizens with nothing in particular to live for.

Totally, and one of the guys said something really poignant. No I don't want a job, I want a career. BIG difference. I grew up poor like those guys and most of my family was in and out of jail. You simply cannot GET a job that pays well enough in some cases. The best that you can get are minimum wage jobs and even then those jobs would rather higher a teenager than an ex con or a dude with a tattoo on his neck. Even so, its easier to sell drugs and collect welfare to make the ends meet than it is to work 80 hours a week at 2 minimum wage jobs just to barely get by. From my experience there are only a FEW jobs that pay ok when you have a criminal record:

1. cook (not chef)
2. construction
3. labor

2 and 3 have been utterly destroyed by the economy, and 1 has been destroyed by illegal immigration.

"GET A JOB" is something so disgustingly short sighted for someone to say to people, when you already have a job. 50% of the men in a certain age group are currently unemployed. What the fuck do you do when "get a job" isn't an option because the job doesn't exist?

 

[acd]

Blah blah blah job creation..Blah blah blah the unemployment rate has gone down...
the unemployment rate is 7.8 because it's harvest time.... and farmers all over the country need temporary laborers...
Can't make a living there... Can't make a living working part-time at Wal Mart for the holidays....
Also, unemployment checks have been cut to 60 days from 90 days.. so that eliminates a portion of those called the jobless.


The job economy really sucks.
Obama wants to create more government jobs and Romney wants to create jobs through eliminating environmental regulations...
Both ideas suck.

 

[Billy]

Blah blah blah job creation..Blah blah blah the unemployment rate has gone down...
the unemployment rate is 7.8 because it's harvest time.... and farmers all over the country need temporary laborers...
Can't make a living there... Can't make a living working part-time at Wal Mart for the holidays....
Also, unemployment checks have been cut to 60 days from 90 days.. so that eliminates a portion of those called the jobless.


The job economy really sucks.
Obama wants to create more government jobs and Romney wants to create jobs through eliminating environmental regulations...
Both ideas suck.

boop

 

[problemz]

Romney is like the Little Red Hen in the story. He wants people who work hard to keep their profits. Obama represents the lazier animals the ones who just say, hey, you didn't invent bread, you didn't invent ovens, give us our fair share, when in fact they've done nothing. Obama can't come out and be a communist, which he is. Romney can come out and be a capitalist, because most Americans still believe in private property as being that with which they've legitimately mixed their labor. If you go into the woods and come out with a gallon of blueberries, there's Obama, saying, give me half, you didn't invent the woods, you didn't invent blueberries. We are the 99%, give us at least that much! Romney represents the people who are fed up with the post-colonial viewpoint. Most of us just want the poor to figure out how to work for themselves, and stop using guilt to try to even things up. Romney won because his ideas are sound, and he will help us all get back to work. Obama only has some freebies. Here, you can have some foam and an abortion if it doesn't work out. Or, here, you don't have to work we will just give you foodstamps and an apartment for free in exchange for your vote. I think Romney will be better for the country in the long run as Obama's viewpoint isn't sustainable. Communism isn't sustainable. I'm for the Little Red Hen. She's a prick, I guess, but she has a point.

 

[Billy]

Romney is like the Little Red Hen in the story. He wants people who work hard to keep their profits. Obama represents the lazier animals the ones who just say, hey, you didn't invent bread, you didn't invent ovens, give us our fair share, when in fact they've done nothing. Obama can't come out and be a communist, which he is. Romney can come out and be a capitalist, because most Americans still believe in private property as being that with which they've legitimately mixed their labor. If you go into the woods and come out with a gallon of blueberries, there's Obama, saying, give me half, you didn't invent the woods, you didn't invent blueberries. We are the 99%, give us at least that much! Romney represents the people who are fed up with the post-colonial viewpoint. Most of us just want the poor to figure out how to work for themselves, and stop using guilt to try to even things up. Romney won because his ideas are sound, and he will help us all get back to work. Obama only has some freebies. Here, you can have some foam and an abortion if it doesn't work out. Or, here, you don't have to work we will just give you foodstamps and an apartment for free in exchange for your vote. I think Romney will be better for the country in the long run as Obama's viewpoint isn't sustainable. Communism isn't sustainable. I'm for the Little Red Hen. She's a prick, I guess, but she has a point.

What if those blueberries are on public land?

 

[problemz]

It's still your labor.

 

[Billy]

It's still your labor.

But not your blueberries.

 

[acd]

Ownership is an illusion. Money is just the "tangible evidence of an intangible promise."
(And it's meaningless if you've actually got nothing to buy.)
It's just a claim.
It's not dollars that ensure our survival, it's cooperation.
But our way of living is so far removed from reality.
The lore of American rugged individualism is really a destructive narrative because it's not based on reality.
That's just not how humans managed to evolve and survive eons.

We have enough food in the world to feed everyone, yet people still starve..

And don't delude yourself, it doesn't have everything to do with labor... Some of the people in this world with the most "blueberries" never did a thing to earn them..

 

[Billy]

Ownership is an illusion. Money is just the "tangible evidence of an intangible promise."
(And it's meaningless if you've actually got nothing to buy.)
It's just a claim.
It's not dollars that ensure our survival, it's cooperation.
But our way of living is so far removed from reality.
The lore of American rugged individualism is really a destructive narrative because it's not based on reality.
That's just not how humans managed to evolve and survive eons.

We have enough food in the world to feed everyone, yet people still starve..

And don't delude yourself, it doesn't have everything to do with labor... Some of the people in this world with the most "blueberries" never did a thing to earn them..

I watched Arnolds Google+ chat last night and he made this point. He said there is no such thing as a "self made man" because we ALL get help somewhere, some more than others. So true. He said he owed his success to 1000s of people. Now the guy was a world champion and successful at everything he did, if he is saying this, there is no excuse for people to say otherwise. I have a HARD time believing that if we took Mitt or any of these bloated venture capitalists and robbed them of not just their money but more importantly their friends and connections and dropped them off in the middle of NYC and said prove that it was all you that they would have probably no greater chance of success than anyone else. Its people born with the right friends and the right combination perks, assets, and connections who rise to the top. That or sheer luck. Its a fallacy to believe that these people got where they are simply because they worked hard. MILLIONS of people work just as hard and go nowhere because they just don't catch the same lucky break. What sickens me the most is when these peacocks make it to the pinnacle of success then turn around and tell everyone to fuck themselves and strap up their boot laces, as though thats the only ingredient to success. Its hypocritical and arrogant to deny the help we all get. Not everyone is born at the starting line, many of us are born BEHIND the starting line and others ahead of it.

 

[Apone]

But not your blueberries.

This is so obvious that I can't even believe it still has to be explained to anyone. Well, no, actually that's not true-- I do understand, but it's frustrating that there are people out there who actually think that 'hard work=big returns' is in any way a reality.

People would pick their own gd blueberries if they weren't going to be persecuted, shot or otherwise forced to leave the forest by the people who have bought up all the land and made it 'theirs'.

Most of these people do not actually 'pick' the blueberries either-- they get other people to pick them, then they take them and sell them to people for a profit. Then they take that profit, buy more land (or fund wars that help them to buy more land or otherwise come into possession of the resources in question), and then do the same thing over and over again. It does not mean that they work any harder than anyone else, or that other people are lazy… it means that some people are good at profiting from other people's hard work.
[MENTION=4235]problemz[/MENTION], your argument is ridiculously backwards, simplistic and ignorant in every single way.

 

[problemz]

No, they're the blueberries of the person who picked them. All children would recognize this. Just as a factory belongs to the family who built it. Only communists think otherwise. Obama is a communist. Like it or lump it. He wants the government to own everything. And he wants to be the one to redistribute "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." Which means that people who don't want to pick blueberries or anything else except their noses will get the same stuff as everyone else, which means the incentive to do anything but pick your nose disappears. Romney offers on the other hand incentive to work. He's an aficionado of the work ethic. Try to function, he's saying to America. Obama is just borrowing money from China to make it seem like our country is rich. However, only work can make you rich. Only your own thinking matters. If you borrow from another person, you are making yourself poor. Obama knows nothing, and Romney made this 100% clear. Obama has never done his own thinking on any topic. He just has writers who do his thinking for him. He is an idiot. An empty chair. They even got this right on the cover of the New Yorker this week. Eastwood was the first to stand up and say that Obama didn't exist. He's a fiction created by the left. The man has the brains of Alfred E. Newman. A total nonfunctioning fool. We desperately need to fire him and replace him with a person who's functional. That would be Romney. You may not like Romney, but he will not borrow trillions from China and give it out to nonfunctional companies like Solyndra. Obama has screwed the country beyond recognition. It's the young and women who have suffered the worst. He offers vaginal cream and abortions as a counter-proposition and idiots like Fluke go for it. It's a bad deal. Take Romney and get back to work! Most of the country is going to shift in that direction, I think. All the polls are showing that Romney has sold the country on his ideas. Obama hasn't had an idea ever. He is a post-colonial nincompoop. I think this debate finally made this stark contrast clear and stopped all the spinning and feelings running up the leftists' legs with their kneejerk orangutangian bombastic ookiness. Romney!

I used to be a Democrat. The party now is no longer anything but the CPUSA.

 

[Billy]

No, they're the blueberries of the person who picked them. All children would recognize this. Just as a factory belongs to the family who built it. Only communists think otherwise. Obama is a communist. Like it or lump it. He wants the government to own everything. And he wants to be the one to redistribute "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." Which means that people who don't want to pick blueberries or anything else except their noses will get the same stuff as everyone else, which means the incentive to do anything but pick your nose disappears. Romney offers on the other hand incentive to work. He's an aficionado of the work ethic. Try to function, he's saying to America. Obama is just borrowing money from China to make it seem like our country is rich. However, only work can make you rich. Only your own thinking matters. If you borrow from another person, you are making yourself poor. Obama knows nothing, and Romney made this 100% clear. Obama has never done his own thinking on any topic. He just has writers who do his thinking for him. He is an idiot. An empty chair. They even got this right on the cover of the New Yorker this week. Eastwood was the first to stand up and say that Obama didn't exist. He's a fiction created by the left. The man has the brains of Alfred E. Newman. A total nonfunctioning fool. We desperately need to fire him and replace him with a person who's functional. That would be Romney. You may not like Romney, but he will not borrow trillions from China and give it out to nonfunctional companies like Solyndra. Obama has screwed the country beyond recognition. It's the young and women who have suffered the worst. He offers vaginal cream and abortions as a counter-proposition and idiots like Fluke go for it. It's a bad deal. Take Romney and get back to work! Most of the country is going to shift in that direction, I think. All the polls are showing that Romney has sold the country on his ideas. Obama hasn't had an idea ever. He is a post-colonial nincompoop. I think this debate finally made this stark contrast clear and stopped all the spinning and feelings running up the leftists' legs with their kneejerk orangutangian bombastic ookiness. Romney!

I used to be a Democrat. The party now is no longer anything but the CPUSA.

you parrot party dogma but dont understand the terms you use.

If you pick blueberries on PUBLIC lands the blueberries are not yours. They belong to the public. Going by your motto I can rob your house and since I used my own labor to take it, its mine. This worked fine for the US when we were still undergoing manifest destiny and the only people being robbed were the natives, but there is no land left to steal. Now we have to consider that MINE MINE MINE wont work forever, and the concept of ownership doesn't always make the most sense. By your reasoning, you would be just dandy with 1 person buying up ALL the land in the country and forcing the rest of us to die and starve because they "own it" and its better to not be communists.

 

[problemz]

Billy, your ignorance about private property is nothing short of astounding. I can't address it. You should read John Locke. You just don't know anything at all, so there's no point to start. Did you have a high school education? I don't know where I could begin. You are so confused about everything that I don't think there is any point in your mind that isn't confused. Plus, you seem to be angry. Try to get into the part of your brain that actually can think logically and clearly, and ask yourself: what is private property? Do I think it's ever ok to say that something is mine? If so, on what basis can I establish this? Once you have some kind of clear principle perhaps we could discuss this. At present, you seem to think that everything belongs to the government, or something. Why you think this is the case isn't clear. Then you think that the public owns blueberries that would otherwise fall of themselves to the ground if they weren't gathered through someone's efforts. I don't know you so don't know if there is any way to reach you. At least not on this topic. I suppose I could just begin: do you ever think that private property is justified? If no, then we have nothing further to discuss. If you think that it IS justified, then on what basis could it be justified? If we could arrive at a clear principle of some kind, then perhaps I could tell what kind of cognitive error you are having. On the other hand, you may be some kind of primitive communist, or you may have never read any political theory. Have you read Locke, or Marx? Have you ever taken a course in political economy? I'm just curious. The difference between Romney and Obama is the difference between Locke and/or Smith, and Marx and the communists. It's a fairly broad and basic distinction. It takes a while to make this distinction clear. I'm trying not to be too snotty, actually, but since you were arrogant and aggressive, I am returning this favor.

 

[Billy]

Billy, your ignorance about private property is nothing short of astounding. I can't address it. You should read John Locke. You just don't know anything at all, so there's no point to start. Did you have a high school education? I don't know where I could begin. You are so confused about everything that I don't think there is any point in your mind that isn't confused. Plus, you seem to be angry. Try to get into the part of your brain that actually can think logically and clearly, and ask yourself: what is private property? Do I think it's ever ok to say that something is mine? If so, on what basis can I establish this? Once you have some kind of clear principle perhaps we could discuss this. At present, you seem to think that everything belongs to the government, or something. Why you think this is the case isn't clear. Then you think that the public owns blueberries that would otherwise fall of themselves to the ground if they weren't gathered through someone's efforts. I don't know you so don't know if there is any way to reach you. At least not on this topic. I suppose I could just begin: do you ever think that private property is justified? If no, then we have nothing further to discuss. If you think that it IS justified, then on what basis could it be justified? If we could arrive at a clear principle of some kind, then perhaps I could tell what kind of cognitive error you are having. On the other hand, you may be some kind of primitive communist, or you may have never read any political theory. Have you read Locke, or Marx? Have you ever taken a course in political economy? I'm just curious. The difference between Romney and Obama is the difference between Locke and/or Smith, and Marx and the communists. It's a fairly broad and basic distinction. It takes a while to make this distinction clear. I'm trying not to be too snotty, actually, but since you were arrogant and aggressive, I am returning this favor.

Woah there Bill Orielly... answer this 1 question. If I had the money and the means to buy all private land and even land from the government and force you to get out of your home by buying it out from under you, and literally own all the land in the USA privately for myself, should I be able to do that and would it be justified that I did it within the current system? Meaning all items born on the land belong to me and you arent entitled to any of it.

 

[problemz]

Apone is somewhat in a worse position, because this is what is called a loose argument. There is an angry denunciation followed by what seems to be an appeal to evidential reason. However, there is no evidence at all that is provided. So, bluster takes the form of a seeming close argument. However, what Apone doesn't realize is that almost everyone in America owns something with the exception of perhaps a very few homeless people. Even they own the clothes on their backs, and often a car or something along those lines. The 99% were often employed and often in well-heated homes, and owned quite a bit of things. But they wanted to provide that "out there" somewhere were people who owned "everything" and that if this could be rescinded then we could all own something more. This is wrong. Even Bill Gates only has about 50 billion dollars. He is, moreover, a Democrat. But we are talking about the richest man in the world, and even he doesn't even own anything but a small percentage of the American economy. Warren buffett is also super-rich but is also a Democrat. The Kennedys are super-rich but are Democrats. Kerry owned 17 mansions but was a Democrat. Edwards: super-rich but also a Democrat. What Republicans largely want is just a chance to get in on the American Dream. That's it. They want to have a small shop or a small business and keep the profits rather than letting the government own it or redistribute it. There is abundant public land. If you pick blueberries on it, they're yours. If you go fishing in a public stream, you have to buy a license most places, but the fish are yours. How it is that you guys don't know this is beyond me. Try to calm down and think clearly. Romney is on your side. You've just been zombified by the communists. But you should open up to the Republicans. They are the radical utopians. They have been ever since Lincoln. They want each person to own a part of the American dream. You can, too. The Democrats want to shove their ideas down your throats so that you walk in their shadows, and vote for them in exchange for fitting in. No INFJ should take this deal. You can think for yourselves, and you can take care of yourselves. You can fish, pick blueberries, raise your own children, and support yourselves. You don't need the government to do any of these things for you. Nor do you need to steal the money of the rich. there is plenty for everyone.

 

[Billy]

Apone is somewhat in a worse position, because this is what is called a loose argument. There is an angry denunciation followed by what seems to be an appeal to evidential reason. However, there is no evidence at all that is provided. So, bluster takes the form of a seeming close argument. However, what Apone doesn't realize is that almost everyone in America owns something with the exception of perhaps a very few homeless people. Even they own the clothes on their backs, and often a car or something along those lines. The 99% were often employed and often in well-heated homes, and owned quite a bit of things. But they wanted to provide that "out there" somewhere were people who owned "everything" and that if this could be rescinded then we could all own something more. This is wrong. Even Bill Gates only has about 50 billion dollars. He is, moreover, a Democrat. But we are talking about the richest man in the world, and even he doesn't even own anything but a small percentage of the American economy. Warren buffett is also super-rich but is also a Democrat. The Kennedys are super-rich but are Democrats. Kerry owned 17 mansions but was a Democrat. Edwards: super-rich but also a Democrat. What Republicans largely want is just a chance to get in on the American Dream. That's it. They want to have a small shop or a small business and keep the profits rather than letting the government own it or redistribute it. There is abundant public land. If you pick blueberries on it, they're yours. If you go fishing in a public stream, you have to buy a license most places, but the fish are yours. How it is that you guys don't know this is beyond me. Try to calm down and think clearly. Romney is on your side. You've just been zombified by the communists. But you should open up to the Republicans. They are the radical utopians. They have been ever since Lincoln. They want each person to own a part of the American dream. You can, too. The Democrats want to shove their ideas down your throats so that you walk in their shadows, and vote for them in exchange for fitting in. No INFJ should take this deal. You can think for yourselves, and you can take care of yourselves. You can fish, pick blueberries, raise your own children, and support yourselves. You don't need the government to do any of these things for you. Nor do you need to steal the money of the rich. there is plenty for everyone.

How can I pick blueberries? all the fucking blueberry land is owned by some corporation. Please answer my question. Taking your concept of private ownership to its extreme, you think its ok for 1 person to own all the land and all the blueberries while the rest of us get shit, because, hey... he owns it.